Lijuan Si1,2,3, Miao Yin1, Jialu Wang1, Shuran Yang1, Jing Zhang1, Lili Wei1,2,3. 1. School of Economics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China. 2. Evidence-based Social Science Research Center, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China. 3. Institute of Green Finance, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The pharmacoeconomic studies of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) are still in its infancy. Assessing the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies of TCM to improve the efficiency of health resource allocation and guide the rational use of medicine. METHODS: Four databases were searched from inception to January 2018. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement (CHEERS) and the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) were used to assess the reporting quality and methodological quality. STATA 12.0 and Meta analyst 3.13 were used to analyze the related data. RESULTS: A total of 178 studies were included. The methodological evaluation of the study found that the total score of QHES was 47.85 ± 8.09. The report quality evaluation results found that many studies did not report comprehensive information, such as lack of detailed reports on abstracts, study perspectives, time frames, discount rates, model selection, but the titles, study background and location, and health results, resource and cost estimates, analysis methods, and heterogeneity analysis are reported in more detail. Six of the ten stratification factors have statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: The overall quality of pharmacoeconomic studies of TCM is low, and further standardization and improvement are needed to obtain reliable study results.
OBJECTIVES: The pharmacoeconomic studies of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) are still in its infancy. Assessing the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies of TCM to improve the efficiency of health resource allocation and guide the rational use of medicine. METHODS: Four databases were searched from inception to January 2018. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement (CHEERS) and the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) were used to assess the reporting quality and methodological quality. STATA 12.0 and Meta analyst 3.13 were used to analyze the related data. RESULTS: A total of 178 studies were included. The methodological evaluation of the study found that the total score of QHES was 47.85 ± 8.09. The report quality evaluation results found that many studies did not report comprehensive information, such as lack of detailed reports on abstracts, study perspectives, time frames, discount rates, model selection, but the titles, study background and location, and health results, resource and cost estimates, analysis methods, and heterogeneity analysis are reported in more detail. Six of the ten stratification factors have statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: The overall quality of pharmacoeconomic studies of TCM is low, and further standardization and improvement are needed to obtain reliable study results.
Entities:
Keywords:
China; Traditional Chinese medicine; methodological quality; pharmacoeconomic study; reporting quality